Site Meter

This will be my last post dealing with election politics. I just wanted to make one last retrospective argument concerning wealth and class envy.

It seems that Barack Obama has been hit hard by the McCain camp's charges of socialism. His latest rebuttal (after unsuccessfully attempting to denigrate "Joe The Plumber" Werzelbacher as a loser who could never possibly earn $250,000 a year) is that anyone complaining about tax rate increases is selfish.

There is anger and frustration among ordinary Americans over tax increases, but it is not because of selfishness. It is because of reality -- only an idiot would believe that the minority of taxpayers taking home $250,000 (or is it $200,000 or $150,000 or $120,000?) or more will be the only group of people to bear the cost of Obama's colossal government expansion. And it is because of resentment. We don't resent those with wealth per se, but we certainly resent an erudite cadre of wealthy, elitist lawyers, tenured professors, political consultants, and politicians telling us what to do with our money. The Anchoress summed it up perfectly some years ago:

Every weekend I meander through the New York Times [...] And every
weekend I finally close the paper and think, this is a publication
which editorializes on the evils of capitalism while it praises
European-style socialism, and foments class resentment between the rich
and the poor…and it disdains middle-class Republicans like me…and yet
it is chock-full of people so rich I have never heard of them, people
who breathe such rarified air and move in such insulated little
conclaves that I would only be likely to encounter them face to face if
I rammed into them on the Long Island Expressway as they moved back and
forth between Town and Country, between Sotheby’s Manhattan and
Sotheby’s Southhampton, so to speak. The paper prostrates itself before
the public-education devotees who send their children to private
schools and the illegal immigrant sympathizers who have bought up the
last private beachfronts in Montauk, inviting those brown-skinned
Catholics onto their property only long-enough to erect the high walls
of their fortresses or to stain their decks.

She continues,

I, in my middle class world, with my callused-handed husband and my
Eagle Scout son, and the friends with whom we volunteer at church and
in the community, do not begrudge the hyper-rich their riches.

What we do begrudge them is their “superior” disdain for our values,
and their hectoring that we are somehow less compassionate, less
well-meaning, gosh darn it just LESSER people because we believe in
giving a hand, rather than a hand-out.

I mind gazillionaires like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, Jon Corzine
and Hillary “we’re going to have to take some things away from you for
the common good” Clinton pretending that our yearly income, our solidly
middle-class income (and very modest emergency fund) is too, too much
for us, unfair to others, undertaxed, greedy, ignoble and selfish. I
mind people who are bouncing on fluffy pillows of honest-to-goodness wealth shaking a rhetorical finger at us for daring to try to get comfortable on our foam rubber mats of hard-earned wages. (emphasis added)

And do you know what really gets under our skin? I'll let Peggy Noonan handle that one:

Our elites, our educated and successful
professionals, are the ones who are supposed to dig us out and lead us.
I refer specifically to the elites of journalism and politics, the
elites of the Hill and at Foggy Bottom and the agencies, the elites of
our state capitals, the rich and accomplished and successful of
Washington, and elsewhere. I have a nagging sense, and think I have
accurately observed, that many of these people have made a separate
peace. That they're living their lives and taking their pleasures and
pursuing their agendas; that they're going forward each day with the
knowledge, which they hold more securely and with greater reason than
non-elites, that the wheels are off the trolley and the trolley's off
the tracks, and with a conviction, a certainty, that there is nothing
they can do about it.

I suspect that history, including great historical novelists of the
future, will look back and see that many of our elites simply decided
to enjoy their lives while they waited for the next chapter of trouble.
And that they consciously, or unconsciously, took grim comfort in this
thought: I got mine. Which is what the separate peace comes down to, "I
got mine, you get yours."

I think that many of us know, deep down inside, that people like Michelle and Barack Obama, who earn a combined annual income comfortably in the 7-figure range, are more or less insulated from the financial affects of the public policies that they support. We know that any "solutions" proposed by Ted Kennedy to our current health care problems ultimately matter little to Kennedy himself, because his family connections, political connections, and personal wealth ensure that his personal medical care will always be the finest available, regardless of location or procedure or cost. We know that the opinions of billionaires like George Soros or Warren Buffett or Bill Gates on tax policies are essentially meaningless because they will still be billionaires, regardless of what the tax code says. Likewise with Hollywood celebrities.

We also know this because this select group of people, with rare exception and seemingly in inverse proportion to both their physical health and their publicly-expressed concern for the poor, are themselves embarrassingly weak benefactors of charity. They are also notorious for exploiting every possible tax loophole, all the while complaining that the rich don't "pay their fair share" in taxes. What did John Edwards, champion of the poor, do during the 1990s when his lawsuit windfalls began to roll in? He formed an S-corporation in order to avoid paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes. Why did Ted Kennedy probate his mother's estate in Florida, even though she had been a lifelong resident of Massachusetts? Florida has no state inheritance tax. And neither John Kerry nor Ted Kennedy pay the optional higher 5.85% Massachusetts state income tax rate. And so on and so on.

We know that the super-rich will not really be affected by income and payroll tax increases, simply because such increases do not affect their principal wealth. Even if the very rich were income taxed at a rate of 100%, they would still be able to live very, very comfortably off the value of their enormous reserves of stocks, bonds, precious metals, cash, real estate, fine art, and other investments.

Perhaps they'll owe a little more under Obama's plans, but they've got theirs, and the enormity of their fortunes means that most of their money will be securely tucked away in tax shelters. And what happens to the rest of us really doesn't matter to them as long as they've paid just enough to assuage their slightly-guilty consciences.

The people who really get nailed under the high marginal taxes and estate taxes of "spread the wealth" schemes are the professionals and successful business owners who have just barely crossed over the $150,000 to $200,000 per year earnings threshold. These people will find themselves working harder to earn substantially less, permanently stuck with enough money to live comfortably, but never really earning enough to fund a retirement account that will allow them to continue to live that way after they retire, or able to accumulate enough to afford their children a comfortable inheritance. And they are the ones whose children will never have enough cash reserves to pay both extended/elderly care costs (such as nursing homes) for their parents, and estate taxes on real property or a business. This is the scenario that hits farmers and ranchers particularly hard. If a son or daughter inherits a farm valued at $2 million, where are they going to come up with the $500,000 or $750,000 in estate taxes for the government?

You may ask, what's so wrong with that? There are tens of millions of people in this country who spend their lives mired in poverty. Why should anyone support the idea that some people should be free to grow rich while others struggle from day to day?

I think the answer is two-fold. First, our nation has never enforced the principle of redistribution of wealth by the Federal government. Our Constitution was written in order to specifically define how our government would function, and to enumerate specific rights of citizens that could not be infringed by that government. The Constitution creates a Federal government that, for the most part, is limited in its ability to interfere in people's lives. It also implies that what is yours is yours, not the government's (or euphemistically, "the people's"). Under such a system, some will prosper and some will fail, but their failure cannot be attributed to persecution or limits on their individual freedoms imposed by the Federal government. In fact, under our system, state governments have more direct control over the rights of their citizens -- it was the state governments in the South that enacted "Jim Crow" laws; yet it took action at the Federal level to ultimately overrule state's rights on that issue.

Barack Obama was exactly right when he said that our Constitution "doesn’t
say what the federal government or the state government must do on your
behalf." He wants to see that changed, of course, but such a major Constitutional overhaul would give the Federal government an unprecedented and ultimately dangerous amount of power over our individual lives. I believe that the potential for the abuse of that power far outweighs any benefits to be gained from it.

Second, as a Christian I strongly object to other Christians attempting to use the government as a strong arm in order to enact their vision of social justice. Many Christians read about the equal partition of the Promised Land among the Israelites, and the communal nature of the early Jerusalem church as described in Acts, and conclude that God's plan for mankind is the equal distribution of wealth among all people. They then propose to task a benevolent centralized government with the administration of such a distribution plan. Unfortunately, the Bible contains no passages that support such a scheme. The New Testament teaches that Christians should peaceably co-exist within the framework of secular governments, and give generously to those in need, but it never teaches that Christians should co-opt those governments as a means of achieving their own ends. (Admittedly, the Church and much of Christendom has repeatedly failed in this regard.)

And in the Old Testament, God does indeed partition the land equally among the tribes of Israel, but He also clearly establishes that the land belongs to Him; the Israelites are merely tenants. They are forbidden from selling land in perpetuity, and whatever land is sold or mortgaged is to be returned to its original owners every 50 years. Therefore, whenever land is sold or mortgaged, its value is to be prorated according to the proximity of the 50 year Jubilee. The Israelites are also required to pay the Temple (i.e. God) an annual tithe of 10% of everything they own. (The Old Testament narratives indicate that the Israelites also failed to honor these commandments, just like the Christian church throughout the ages.) And God specifically requires His people to be generous with the poor and to refrain from profiting from their misfortune. Yet outside of these requirements, the children of Israel are allowed to honestly earn whatever they can, and -- with the previously noted exception of possessions that have been borrowed or purchased from others -- God never commands His people to redistribute their own personal wealth.

There is also one other thing. Redistribution of wealth schemes will do little to solve the primary affliction suffered by the poor in this country -- civic poverty -- which is the belief that they are irrelevant to the course of events in their communities. Civic poverty is most prominently displayed among African-Americans, who suffered persecution and loss of basic civil rights in this country for over a century after they had been freed from slavery. Even though civil rights laws have been amended, and even though academia and the professional workforce has striven to provide affirmative action and equal opportunities for Blacks during the last 40 years, there is still (particularly at the lowest economic levels) a basic distrust of America, its government and its financial systems among Blacks.

So far, all of our attempts to fight poverty have involved material solutions. And honestly, our poor enjoy a much better standard of living that average working-class citizens in many nations. But no one has been able to explain to me how a massive, materially-oriented redistribution of wealth scheme will somehow make the lives of the civically impoverished any better. Theirs is an emotional and spiritual deficit, and money will not make the hurt and distrust disappear, nor will it mend broken families or dysfunctional communities of any kind. In fact, I believe that such a scheme would make the lives of the civically impoverished even more miserable, because receiving free money with no required interaction could very well create an even greater temptation to stay disconnected from society at large.

So how do we fight civic poverty? The same way that Jesus taught us to spread his Gospel -- through relationships. By listening. By lending a hand whenever people are truly in need. By teaching others self-worth and self-respect. By helping people overcome addictions and hangups. In short, by getting our hands dirty, making ourselves vulnerable, and doing it all voluntarily, without coercion or intimidation from the government.

Such a solution is difficult, frustrating, painfully slow and seemingly hopeless. You can't accomplish it simply by writing a check or creating a government bureaucracy and then hoping everything works out OK. Is America capable of such a task, right now? Probably not. Certainly not without a spiritual awakening and revival, which is what I pray for daily for my own life and for our nation. Shouldn't we do something in the mean time, then? Yes, but only if our stop-gap measure is not worse than the problem at hand. I believe that socialism -- even non-violent, "democratic" socialism approved by voters -- is not the answer, because it only alters behavior by force of law; it does not fundamentally improve the character or spirit of its subjects. And it takes our allegiance away from God and lessens our responsibility for each other, since socialism recasts government as the ultimate owner of all wealth, and, subsequently, the sole source of our livelihood and well-being. When we turn the state into a God, we are not doing His will.

That's what I believe, and that's why I cannot support redistribution of wealth as a solution to America's current financial and spiritual problems. Please join me in praying for a better way.

Among conservatives, the "story that won't die" about Barack Obama is the tale of his close ties to 60's radicals who still identify very strongly with Marxism. The biggie is William Ayres. Another radical who has now been linked to Obama is Michael Klonsky.

Anyone who has studied the Progressive movement in America, from its turn-of-the-twentieth-century origins up until today, should not be surprised that Marxism has always been the dominant philosophical influence of the contemporary American left. In other words, progressivism has always been synonymous with Marxist thought, particularly Marx's concern for the plight of the underpriviledged, under-educated, underpaid, and under-represented working class.

And just in case you haven't yet figured it out, progressivism and its core values of egalitarianism and benevolent distribution of wealth (as opposed to conservatism and its core values of peace through strength and the free market) is the dominant philosophy of America's "chattering class," those who craft and perpetuate our cultural mythos --philosophers, historians, social scientists, educators, journalists, artists, and entertainers. Thus our contemporary cultural narrative, as taught in universities, as expounded in editorial pages, as explored through songs and poems and films, is steeped in progressivism, and by extension, Marxist ideals.

But that wasn't always the case. The paradigm shift that brought about the wholesale conversion of the cultural chattering class to progressivism and Marxism was WWII, because the evils committed by Germany -- considered by many to be the cultural center of Western Europe -- caused the academic world to drastically re-think the theological, philosophical, and economic ideals that shaped Europe during its great period of colonial expansion during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

Western intellectuals tackled not only what went wrong in Germany, but also what was happening in lands that had long been oppressed by European colonial governments and military forces, specifically Africa, India, and Southeast Asia. Support for "people's revolutions" around the world grew rapidly among intellectuals, who by this time (the early 1960's) had begun to teach their students that the treatment of natives by Western colonial powers was just as evil as the oppression inflicted by the Nazis on the European nations that they conquered.

Thus a new generation of students was indoctrinated in the philosophies of Marx, and taught to believe that capitalism and military power were de facto marks of evil, and that the third world revolutionaries who promised political and cultural equality and financial equity for their people were truly the last best hope for freedom and stability in the world. "Baby Boomers" like William Ayres and Michael Klonsky were part of this new generation. They willfully ignored, and in many cases supported, the unmitigated use of violence that coincided with "people's revolutions," and stood unwaveringly behind any Communist regime that was opposed by the United States government. And in the late 1960's, the Baby Boomers became the dominant force behind American popular culture, which remains dominated by leftist ideals to this very day.

Another branch of progressivism, one that has been heavily involved in issues of social justice for more than a century, is populated by many Christian activists who have dedicated their lives to organizing and enabling the poor and oppressed. They are almost exclusively pacifist: while they support non-violent civil disobedience, they universally condemn warfare and the sale of arms and munitions for profit. They argue that the resources spent on warfare would be much better spent educating and equipping the poor, and breaking down the barriers between the different classes within our society. Christian progressives also espouse thrift, stewardship, charitable giving, and communal living. Dorothy Day's Hospitality Houses and Clarence Jordan's Koinonia Farm are two of the best known examples of Christian-oriented communal fellowship.

Because of their absolute refusal to support the U.S. military -- even for "just" causes such as the liberation of Europe from the Nazis -- and because of their continuing efforts in support of labor unions, community organizing, and unrestricted government benefits for the poor, Christian progressives have often been accused of being Communists; this was especially true during the "red scare" decade of the 1950's. In truth, many early Christian progressives did form partnerships with socialist and Communist activists, beginning with the period of economic and racial unrest that blanketed America after the First World War. Ironically, these Christians considered the nascent Communist movement to be one of their strongest allies in the struggle to give a voice to the working poor. (Today's evangelical Christians should use this curious fact as food for thought and discussion.)

Finally, black intellectuals have wrestled with the themes of socialism and government intervention for over a century. Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. DuBois led both sides of this debate: Washington argued that the black man was capable of achieving surpassing greatness if the government simply kept others from impeding him; DuBois felt that the government had an obligation to directly give back both the financial and social status that it had robbed from the black man. DuBois' side eventually won out, and his line of thinking culminated in the democratic socialism espoused by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and in the Affirmative Action programs implemented by the Federal Government.

So what does all of this have to do with Barack Obama? Well, it's rather simple really -- Barack Obama is the first major Presidential nominee who is entirely a product of these three main streams of progressivism: Afrocentric democratic socialism, Christian social justice and pacifism, and the Marxist ideal of worker-led revolution, or "change" if you prefer. Obama's mother was a self-proclaimed Bohemian free spirit, politically progressive and disdainful of traditional Protestant Christianity. Obama went to Ivy League schools and was heavily involved in community organizing and social justice issues. He was mentored by William Ayres and became a trusted peer, aiding Ayres in his attempts to reform the public education system in Chicago. He struggled to identify with the black community (which originally shunned him because he is Ivy League educated and half white) so he joined Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ, perhaps the most Afrocentric church in Chicago and unabashed practitioners of social justice, community organizing, and Black Liberation Theology.

Naturally, Barack Obama is going to have many associations with people whom conservatives would immediately label "communist." (And a few associations with people such as William Ayres, who describe themselves as full-blown revolutionaries and Communists.)

So what does all of this mean? Well, first off let me say that I don't expect an immediate "people's revolution" and the establishment of the Democratic Socialist States of America if Obama wins. But what is troubling to me is that on the campaign trail, Obama himself has never been straightforward about where he stands within the continuum of hard-left, left, and moderate-left ideals. "Joe The Plumber" Wurzelbacher coaxed Obama into accidentally admitting that he believes government has an obligation to "spread the wealth around." But what else does Obama believe? It's probably safe to say that he doesn't directly endorse the kind of violent Communist revolution that Bill Ayers was hoping for thirty five years ago. But exactly what does he want? This?

House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the
New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her
idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular
retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers
transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement
accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600
(inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also
have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the
government would pay a measly 3 percent return.

Such a plan would of course make it impossible for workers and employers to afford to continue contributing to private 401(k) retirement accounts. And on top of potentially massive corporate income and capital gains tax increases, the loss of market capital from such a plan would be devastating not only to the stock market, but to our economy as a whole.

Also, Obama has pledged to slash defense spending, to eliminate new weapons systems development, and to pursue unilateral disarmament. He has even pledged to meet with the leaders of dangerous nations without preconditions. Just exactly what are his views on defense and the necessity of military preparedness? We really don't know.

The true danger in an Obama victory lies in the seriousness with which his star-struck radical leftist and Marxist supporters will interpret such a win. Will it be considered a "mandate" for hard-left public policies and a final attempt to purge the last traces of traditional conservative political thought, free market economics, and Protestant Christianity from contemporary American culture?

A sobering truth about progressivism is that it is fundamentally incompatible with free thought. Progressivism celebrates the triumph of the human intellect, and such a philosophical underpinning necessitates the creation of intellectual classes, particularly the "enlightened" vs. the "helpless" or "ignorant." The "brights" know that eventually the inferior intellectual classes will tire of being controlled. I absolutely believe that given enough access to government power, contemporary progressive intellectuals will try to stifle any dissent or inquiry that deviates from the progressive party line, because deep down inside they know that such chilling policies are the only way to keep the "non-enlightened" from becoming discontent with their intellectual overlords.

My concern about all of this can be summed up in one of Ronald Reagan's famous quotes -- it's not that our liberal friends are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that simply isn't true. If Barack Obama wins, we will have a perfect opportunity to find out just how much Progressives really know -- or don't have a common-sense clue about.

...

ADDED: Here's yet another video about Barack Obama that is being circulated through conservative blogs:

The video contains audio excerpts from a 1995 interview with Obama about his book Dreams of My Father. During the interview, Obama uses a favorite stereotype of progressives -- the "white executive" who lives out in the suburbs because he "doesn't want to pay taxes to inner city children." (I wonder what Obama thinks today, about his own Rev. Jeremiah Wright moving to one of Chicago's choicest suburbs?)

Obama also articulates the belief that his own salvation is dependent upon "a collective salvation of the country," which in turn is directly related to the elimination of systems that allow certain groups to prosper, while other groups (specifically African-Americans) are doing "bad if not worse."

How do we save the country? We "make sacrifices."

Obama is not just espousing Marxism here. Obama's statements also represent one of the fundamental tenants of Liberation Theology, which is that God not only judges individuals, but nations (that is, communities bound by covenant in the Old Testament sense, not just modern nation-states). The "Black Liberation Theology" of James Cone that Rev. Jeremiah Wright
so fervently taught to his flock at Trinity UCC is simply an
Afrocentric variation of classic liberation theology.

Liberation theology expands the definition of "sin" beyond personal transgressions; it teaches that communities can collectively sin, based on how they treat the least among themselves. (Recall that God judged the entire nation of Egypt, not just Pharaoh.) Liberation
theologians teach that even though God's plan for personal salvation
has been fulfilled through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God's nature is consistent, and He still judges righteousness
collectively, just as He did in the Old Testament -- specifically among
communities who claim to follow Him and whose leaders publicly pray for
His
guidance. Under such a standard, of course, the United States stands
to be judged most harshly by God; this makes American liberation
theologians particularly fearful, because there have always been
drastic inequalities between the poorest and the richest in our nation.

I have blogged about economic injustice and God's judgment of nations elsewhere. And while I agree with much of what liberation theology teaches, I am strongly concerned about the Marxist plans that Obama and his minions have for America. There is a massive difference between a people led to justice through the work of the Holy Spirit voluntarily sacrificing in order to create equality and security among their bretheren, and a group of ruling elites forcing the masses to "sacrifice" in order to feed an enormous, inefficient, and corrupt bureaucracy. Such a system is guaranteed to make everyone poorer, and to do little else.

You might be interested in the efforts of Oklahoma City resident Dan Short and his new cooperative effort, Mustard Seed Development Corporation. Mustard Seed is a faith-based organization that provides assistance to families living in Oklahoma City's 73114 zip code, currently the second-poorest demographic region in Oklahoma City. From their webiste:

Mustard Seed serves a disadvantaged area of Oklahoma City
that is often overlooked by City planners and community
organizations. Ranked as the second highest poverty area
in Oklahoma City by the Department of Human Services, the
area is currently ineligible for Empowerment zoning, receives
no Community Block Grant monies, has schools that are consistently
ranked low performance, and has a significantly high crime rate.
Mustard Seed is the only community development organization working
in this impoverished neighborhood.

Second highest poverty area in OKC

Median family income $29,047

4,036 families; 24% live below poverty level

1,648 female parent households; 41% live below the poverty level

33% of households on social security and/or public assistance income.

Housing costs are over 35% of income for:

14.6% of homeowners

35.6% of renters

The 73114 zip code lies on the eastern edge of the city's northwest side. Several years ago, as retirees and younger families began giving up the starter-sized homes in the area, residents from the city's more-impoverished east side -- mostly black -- moved into the neighborhood, looking for a way out of the east side and for homes that were closer to where many of them worked. Unfortunately the problems of poverty (single female parent households, drugs, high unemployment) followed this group to the northwest side.

Dan and his organization are trying to do something about the negative situations in many of these people's lives. I had the opportunity to meet Dan a few months ago and hear firsthand what Mustard Seed is doing. I can tell you honestly that Mustard Seed would be a worthy recipient of your charitable contributions.

You who turn justice into bitterness and cast righteousness to the ground ...

... you hate the one who reproves in court and despise him who tells the truth.

You trample on the poor and force him to give you grain. Therefore, though you have built stone mansions, you will not live in them; though you have planted lush vineyards, you will not drink their wine.

For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins. You oppress the righteous and take bribes and you deprive the poor of justice in the courts.

Therefore the prudent man keeps quiet in such times, for the times are evil.

Seek good, not evil, that you may live. Then the LORD God Almighty will be with you, just as you say he is. (Amos 5:7; 10-14 NIV)

Mott Haven was described in 1991 by the New York Times as "one of the city's most forlorn neighborhoods." An epidemic of drug trafficking, drug addiction, murder, assault, robbery, and HIV/AIDS had so ravaged the neighborhood that New York City officials tagged the area around Beekman Avenue as "the deadliest blocks in the deadliest district" of the city. Police officers only drove around the outskirts of the neighborhood. Social workers handed out clean hypodermic needles and free condoms in an effort to stop the spread of HIV. In 1991 there were 84 murders in Mott Haven, one every four days.

Writer Jonathan Kozol visited the neighborhood in 1993 and 1994, and soon after published his interviews and observations in his powerful memoir Amazing Grace. Kozol chronicled the hopelessness that suffocates the neighborhood's residents. Most of the families living in Mott Haven's housing projects were headed by single mothers or single grandmothers (if the mothers were in prison) and the suffering endured by these women is heartbreaking. The combination of depression induced by the gloom of their environment, anxiety from the constant gunfire and killings, asthma fueled by anxiety and the vermin and insects that infest their apartments, and AIDS contracted from using contaminated needles or from sexual partners, had utterly devastated their lives.

"You have to struggle to get through the afternoon. You have to drink a lot of coffee and you smoke too much to keep from crying or exploding at somebody. You feel nervous all the time and can't calm down."

"Nothin' works here in my neighborhood ... Everything breaks down in a place like this. The pipes break down. The phone breaks down. The electricity and heat break down. The spirit breaks down. The body breaks down. The immune agents of the heart also breaks down. Why wouldn't the family break down also?"If we saw the people in these neighborhoods as part of the same human family to which we belong, we'd never put them in such places to begin with. But we do not think of them that way. That's one area of 'family breakdown' that the experts and newspapers seldom speak of."

"... Keepin' a man is not the biggest problem. Keepin' from being killed is bigger. Keepin' your kids alive is bigger. If nothin' else works, why should a marriage work? I'd rather have a peaceful little life just with my kids than live with somebody who knows that he's a failure. Men like that make everyone feel rotten." (Kozol, Amazing Grace, pp. 180-181)

The only sign of optimism witnessed by Kozol in the Mott Haven projects was in the eyes of its children, who nonchalantly spoke of murder and drug dealing and prison in the same manner that a suburban child might speak of pizza or cheerleading or Thomas The Tank Engine. The concepts of good and evil strongly resonated in the minds of these kids, along with the deep conviction that their circumstances were clearly the result of the evils done to their people by the wealthy elites who lived on the other side of the island. Their belief in God, deeply instilled in them by mothers and grandmothers, was also strong, particularly their hope in the promise of Heaven. Sadly, these children had little else to hope for.

"What do you do with some of these realities? ... Here is a city in which nine out of ten children born with AIDS are black kids or Latinos, many of their mothers or fathers IV users. You have 14-year-old girls who are crack users. If you don't believe in God and don't believe in family or society , and don't believe you'll ever have a job, what do you have? Even when a good political leader speaks to them, his rhetoric has no effect. It's like walking into an intensive-care ward in a hospital and saying, 'Rise!'" (ibid, p. 174)

(Author's note: After I wrote this first short essay about Mott Haven, I realized that there was much more that I wanted to say. So I wrote a second essay inspired by Amazing Grace and the poverty of Mott Haven. Both essays were conceived and written independently, so there is some redundancy between the two pieces. But I hope you will read them both.)

My JustFaith study group has been reading Amazing Grace by Jonathan Kozol, a harrowing account of life in New York City's most poverty-stricken neighborhoods during 1993 and 1994. Kozol centers the book around Alice Washington and her son David, who represent the most exploited class of victims in the South Bronx slums. Alice separated from, and eventually divorced, her unfaithful and abusive husband; his parting gift to her was the HIV virus. She survived cancer, but her illnesses left her too sick to work. She and her son became wards of the City of New York, and ended up in its poorest ghetto.

Much of Kozol's narrative takes place in Mott Haven, a community once known for its striking turn-of-the-century architecture and iron work. But the Mott Haven in Kozol's book is infested with prostitutes, drug dealers, junkies, violent crime, and rundown, overcrowded public housing. The hopelessness, despair, and powerlessness of the residents of the South Bronx is heartbreaking and, at times, difficult to absorb without shedding tears.

The downward spiral of New York's ghettos is not traced by Kozol, but here is their sad history. New York City's controversial urban planning of the 1950's, managed in an almost totalitarian fashion by architect Robert Moses, resulted in entire neighborhoods being razed in order to build expressways and highway overpasses. The displaced populations of those neighborhoods were crowded into old tenement apartments that were already in poor condition before they were leased by the city. Mott Haven was darkened and isolated by the massive bridges of the Major Deegan and Bruckner expressways, which were designed to safely bring throngs of suburban workers into and out of Manhattan. Middle class families and small business moved out. Building owners turned to arson in order to reclaim the remaining equity in their properties. Mott Haven became the thriving center of New York City's ugly crack epidemic during the 1980's. Its residents became deeply impoverished and drug-addicted, with no realistic opportunities for jobs and no foreseeable way out. Sadly, the drug business was the only source of revenue to move into Mott Haven over the span of nearly three decades.

Also, as a result of decreasing city revenues and rising civil unrest, the city reduced the number of police officers patrolling the streets in the South Bronx and adopted a "see no evil" approach to prostitution, street corner drug dealing, and other misdemeanor offenses.

In 1997, Mott Haven was rezoned in order to encourage small businesses to begin populating its outskirts once more. Crime fell considerably (PDF file in link) throughout New York City in the late 1990's, and today Mott Haven's parks and street corners are generally free from drug dealers and prostitutes. Many housing projects still occupy a good deal of Mott Haven, but real estate bargain hunters have discovered the neighborhood's scenic hundred-year-old brownstones, and have begun buying them up and refurbishing them. Construction is slated to begin soon on a new $235 million school for the neighborhood.

Long-time Mott Haven residents are fearful that the influx of white, urban, middle-class residents will push rent and other cost of living expenses out of their reach. There is also resentment from the borough's predominately minority residents, who wonder if their new white neighbors are just exploiting the neighborhood's current low cost of living, only to move out again when living in Mott Haven is no longer chic. But more rezoning is slated for the neighborhood, and soon more of the old industrial and warehouse district will be converted into more residential and retail areas.

Still, life in NYC's housing projects is difficult. Residents are continually plagued with mold, lead paint, rodents, and roaches. Asthma is far more prevalent among children who live in public housing, and recent studies show that heart disease, cancer, and diabetes also claim a higher number of victims in these neighborhoods. Environmental problems, particularly pollution stemming from the disposal and recycling of hazardous materials that occurs in facilities rejected by wealthier and more powerful neighborhoods, are still painfully evident. And even though crime has been drastically reduced, NYC's housing projects still see appreciably more murders and robberies than surrounding neighborhoods.

Perhaps the fundamental lesson that we can learn from New York City's problems is that poverty and isolation often result from a long series of policy decisions and events that, individually, seem insignificant. But as the effects of these decisions incrementally build up over time, the results can be devastating.

Where do we build the expressways that carry us from comfortable suburbs into our cities? Where do we build waste incinerators? Where do we build landfills? Are we concentrating public housing, and are we building these concentrations in isolated locations? Are these locations poorly served by public transportation? Which neighborhoods have the greatest number of police patrols? In which neighborhoods are the police more or less likely to make arrests? Which neighborhoods have the best public schools? Which neighborhoods have the worst public schools? Are students given the opportunity to attend schools other than the ones in their neighborhood? Which neighborhoods have the best city council representation?

Humanity seems to be absorbed in the pursuit of luxury. We strive to build
societies that continually offer more and more "value" to their
residents. Often these values are embarrassingly superficial: designer
clothing, cutting-edge technology, exclusive neighborhoods, access to
the cocktail party scene, celebrity status ... yet we continue to
believe that the more of this stuff we have, the greater our relevance
becomes, and the more entitled we are to belong to the ruling class.

It is natural for those with the most money to be the ones who pay the most taxes, and it is natural for the top taxpayers to expect the most in return for their contributions. But the Bible clearly teaches that when we forfeit the quality of life for others in order to create a luxurious community for ourselves, we spit in the faces of those whom God loves. We will be held accountable for these choices.